Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2179 2014 SLD 2179 2014 CLD 1424
Sindh High Court
First Appeal No.59 of 2013, decision dated: 27-01-2014.
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI AND, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JJ
Ms. Syeda Sara Kanwal for Appellant. Sultan A. Alana for
Respondent No. 1. S.M. Kazim for
Respondent No. 5.

Mst. MEHWISH KASHIF through Attorney/Husband

VS

Messrs SUMMIT BANK LTD. and 4 others

Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 19, 15 & 22---Civil Procedure Court (V of 1908), S.151---Execution of decree of Banking Court---Auction of mortgaged property---Higher bid made by person after conclusion of auction proceedings and confirmation of sale to the auction-purchaser--- Effect--- Mortgaged property was auctioned with the intervention of the court and after following of the procedure, sale was confirmed in favour of auction-purchaser---One month after conclusion of auction proceedings, appellant filed application under S. 151, C.P.C., offering a higher amount for the said property and prayed that appellant's higher bid should be accepted---Validity---Appellant failed to participate in auction and application under S. 151, C.P.C. was filed after one month and eight days from the conclusion of the auction proceedings---Nothing had been stated by the appellant to point out commission of any fraud, irregularity, inadvertence, error or mistake on part of Banking Court or the procedure adopted for the auction---Appellant was neither party to the suit or execution nor participated in the auction proceedings and after a delay of one month and eight days, appellant filed an application under S.151, C.P.C. for acceptance of an offer that the appellant had never made at the time of auction---Banking Court had confirmed the bid in favour of the auction-purchaser and had adopted the procedure and mechanism under the law for the same, therefore, appellant had no locus standi to raise any objection to the auction proceedings---Nothing should be left to the sweet will of any individual to bypass such legal procedure on the pretext that he/she was ready to offer to pay more money than the highest bid made during the auction, which was concluded after following the legal procedure and timeframe by the law and was proclaimed by the Banking Court---Mere increase of offer made by a stranger after more than a month from the conclusion of the auction proceedings could not be accepted as a valid ground for setting aside a valid sale through open auction with intervention of Banking Court unless proceedings of auction were…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492